If housing were affordable...

[Jed Dilligan]

I often fantasize about a world with affordable housing. No, not a grant or voucher or something that you apply for over the course of several years of proving your honest poverty--I mean affordable housing. A guy with a full-time minimum-wage job can rent an efficiency apartment and have enough money left over for groceries, gas or bus fare, and a sixpack or a movie now and then. I figure the rent on that apartment would be 50-75 dollars a month. Even if minimum wage gets doubled, the amount would still be well under market rates.

So what happens to the higher tiers of the real estate market, then? Does the value of every owned home plummet? Are there any economics wizards out there who don't have me on ignore? :)

[annabanana]

1. good question

I hope some of our econoDUers check in.

[datasuspect]

2. are you kidding?

those minimum wage welfare queens need to take personal responsibility and pick themselves up by their bootstraps and start their own businesses!!!!

/sarcasm

[Jed Dilligan]

3. I wrote "fantasize" for a reason. nt

[CornField]

4. Not an economic wizard, but...

In my area, monthly rent is far more than monthly mortgage payments. I think the issue in my area is a lack of rental housing (especially single family dwellings). Since there are so few, they are rented at a premium. In my particular community, apartments are also difficult to come by, so renting one here (as compared to neighboring communities) is also expensive.

As to your last question about home value... Houses near mine were purchased and are now rental properties. I don't think that move by itself caused my own reduced property value; however, renters and rental owners don't seem to be nearly as caring of the home, yard and out-buildings as a home owner would be. As a result, our neighborhood is looking more "junkie" and homeowners are not able to get the same price from their homes as they might have 5 years ago. (Although they are still making profits.)

[Jed Dilligan]

5. I guess my real question is

How much does the rental value figure into the home's value? Presumably your neighbors can turn a profit renting out their junky property (the rent greater than mortgage you mention), and the bank must consider this in determining the terms of the mortgage. If it were say, illegal for the owners to rent at greater than "affordable" rents, the mortgage would be higher-risk and the rates would go up... or something. I wish an expert would show up and explain this to me!

[raccoon]

6. I think a large part of the problem is that it's not profitable to

build low-rent housing.

Say it costs X amount of money to build an apartment complex with 100 apartments. Why build a low-rent place when you can add a few amenities, build larger apartments, and charge a lot more? And it probably is so expensive to build ANYTHING that there wouldn't be any point, from a profit standpoint, in building new low-rent housing.

I think this is a great fantasy, but without subsidies from somewhere I don't see anybody building any low-rent housing. Hey, maybe Bill Gates could donate a few billion for that, ya think?

[Jed Dilligan]

7. What if they just put a ceiling on rent? nt

[raccoon]

8. That'd be good, but don't think I'll live to see it.

It would have to be set at a local level, depending on the cost of housing in the area.

[Wcross]

10. Terrible idea- Rent ceilings.

There would be NO new construction of apartments. Current rental units would deteriorate due to the lack of maintenance. Rent ceilings would really increase homelessness.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. That's the effective truth in California right now.

There's ultimately only so much people can pay, and that's not enough to inspire the property owners to maintain their places. You can pay $700+ for a unit that's crumbling and pockmarked with bullet holes, or you can sleep in the streets. Great choice.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Who's they, and why would they want to do that?

Rent controls are in place or have been in place recently in certain areas of the country. Rather than provide for affordable housing for all, they tend to create a housing crunch because of the disincentive to add to the rental housing stock for such a low rate of return on investment.

Rent controls are tricky because absolute control is contrary to the general rule of allowing profits based on the market. Most rent control or rent stabilization programs have exceptions such as units in owner-occupied buildings with three or fewer units, or exemption of new construction. In the first case, the way the laws as written may not have anticipated condo conversions and if that's the case owners may choose this route to maximize returns; the effect is a loss in the number of rental units. In the latter case, the new construction units tend to be high end rents because there's no sense building units that will compete with those under rent control. The number of affordable units does not increase to keep pace with new household formation or in-migration.

The best way to create a reliable supply of affordable housing may be to have the government get back in the business of creating rental housing through public housing and privately owned subsidized housing (subsidized either through construction and tax credits or tenant subsidies.) If there is sufficient supply to meet the need, the private rental housing rates will correct to stay competitive. HUD can't flood the market, but can help maintain a healthy vacancy rate which will in turn stabilize rents.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. "They" would be the governments

Who pass laws limiting what individuals and businesses can do. Why can't one of those laws be charging no more than (as suggested above) 28% of gross f/t minimum wage per bedroom? I understand your arguments against it, I just don't understand why this couldn't be a law. There are laws against sleeping in public, why not laws against gouging renters?

on edit: The "rent control" cities obviously passed those laws because there was already a housing crunch, so I'm not sure you can back up the causality.

[dysfunctional press]

18. we own a two-flat, and rent out the upstairs apartment.

it's a one bedroom unit that we rent for $750/month (going up to $800 in september), and we occupy the downstairs apartment.

if the law you wanted were to go into effect, we would no longer rent out the apartment, but rather convert the building over to a single-family home. and i can GUARANTEE that LOTS of other rental-property owners would do likewise, and the number of available units would plummet.

very bad plan.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Wasn't meant as a plan.

Just wondering why it was legal to charge so much for so little in the way of something everyone needs.

[dysfunctional press]

29. it's called "market forces"

there are plenty of people more than willing to pay the price we ask.

if there weren't, we'd be forced to lower the price until it was what the local housing market would support, that's why.
and if the best price we could get was too low, it wouldn't be worth it to rent it at all, but rather to utilize the extra space for ourselves.

[hfojvt]

30. that's what landlords, employers, and marketers like to call it

As a thinking species there is no logical reason for us to be at the mercy of "forces". The question is whether we could do any better with organizing and planning and still maintain a level of freedom and choice.

Planned economies have sorta been tried - and failed, and social democracies are having their problems. What I would like to see is a dual economy - separating needs and wants. Basic necessities such as housing, food, transportation and clothing (all at a basic and collective level) would be provided for all. Free, except paid for by an average of two hours of work per day.

Most people would want more than the basics - which would be provided by a regulated market economy.

Which is not much different than a market economy with a solid safety net, except that people would not be able to just relax in the net and the net would not compete or subsidize certain parts of the market economy - (for example the way HUD checks subsidize landlords).

But that's a far away dream, but I can dream, can't I?

[dysfunctional press]

31. no reason to dream- move to north korea...

and make it your reality. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

32. That's a little extreme.

Everyone admits there's a spectrum. In America food is virtually free because the government subsidizes production heavily. The cheapest food is crap but you can fill your belly for next to nothing--much less than the 2 hrs. a day work proposed by the poster you're responding to. Housing is increasingly a luxury item. I'd just as soon see it subsidized rather than see the elite get finer and finer homes.

As far as "housing for those who can afford it" goes... The people who support this viewpoint and then turn around and support "quality of life" laws to criminalize homelessness deserve to be torn apart by wild animals. Just my opinion. :)

[hfojvt]

37. I proposed two hours a day

for food, clothing, transportation, and shelter. I should have added medical care.

Housing is not necessarily a luxury item, only in some really over-populated places where all the jobs are. Rents are high here, although houses are cheap. But they are not "nice" houses in "nice" neighborhoods.

Plus, the difficulty most people have is in having the foresight and discipline to save up for a down payment.

[dysfunctional press]

40. two hours a day????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(psst...just so you know, "peter pan" is a work of fiction, and never-never land doesn't really exist)

[hfojvt]

36. ha ha fu$%ing ha

as if North Korea is even close to what I described. Any call for more compassion and cooperation in society must simply be answered by running dog reactionaries who point to totalitarian poor societies like North Korea and China. See, that proves this is the best of all possible worlds. :thumbsdown:

[dysfunctional press]

39. regarding your original post-

where did you come up with the two hours of work per day part...? it sure seems like a pretty meager amount, considering all that you want people to be provided with.

and btw- there is a place where the state does provide the basic necessities free-of-charge...it's called prison. go commit a violent felony, and you'll have it made in the shade. heck- they'll probably even let you work a couple hours a day to make extra money for smokes, too!

[Jim Warren]

55. Ah can just feel the love

with such an incredible sentient being before us.

[hfojvt]

56. I pulled it out of the air

"I shall assume, in order to quite sure of being on the safe side, that four hours' work a day on the part of all adults would suffice to produce as much material comfort as reasonable people ought to desire." 1972 Bertrand Russell

But of course it is probably never gonna happen. Unlike the days of Henry George and Edward Bellamy, people are not even dreaming about it.

But hey, thanks for telling me about prisons, I had never heard of them before :eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

59. no problem...now go work your two hours a day...

and see how far it gets you...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Simple, because it wouldn't work in the private market.

Capping rate of return based on the lowest wage level would create a strong disincentive for the private developers to produce rental housing. The government would be forced to be the principal producer and owner in that scenario.

As for rent control, I was a senior researcher on several in-depth, nonpartisan studies of the effect of rent control laws on specific communities and the correlations were there. Rent control as a short term solution to address a housing crunch is an effective tool, but after time the rental markets become skewed in the ways that I described in my previous post.

[SoCalDem]

22. great idea IF you are the renter..Horrible if you are the landlord

As states, communities get more strapped for cash, they RAISE property taxes, so how does a landlord cover that? he/she raises rent..

Also, since the landlord is responsible for the structural integrity and maintenance of the actual property, there are expenses that crop up that are too costly to not factor into the rent..

and of course the only way landlords have to choose their tenants legally these days is to make the rents high enough to avoid the place turning into a trash heap.. (you would not believe the damage done to properties by "low-lifes"..)

The more a person spends on rent, the more likely they are to be a responsible person with a good job and are more likely to take good care of the place..

[Jed Dilligan]

25. It would be nice if

they figured out some other way to pay teachers, police, and firefighters other than property taxes.

The least expensive apartments available ($650-700/mo in California) are trash heaps already. I'm not willing to spend half my income to live in one!

[SoCalDem]

27. In most placed in CA, people cannot afford to live where they work

WE can't..never could..

My son lives in Concord..hoouses START at half a mil there.. They bought 4 years ago..paid $435K for a "fixer-upper" built in 1953. they had to put on a new roof & guttering, JACK THE HOUSE UP, put in a new driveway, all new windows, and remove a fireplace, just to make it liveable.. They spent about $75k in repairs.. It's about 1100 sq ft.
They did a great job and it's big enough for them, but that house in Kansas would cost about $50K WITH all the upgrades they did..

location location location

[dysfunctional press]

33. that's why people get roommates.

that's what i did when i was starting out...i also worked two jobs. that enables you to save a little every month, and work toward a down-payment on your own place. that's how people have been doing it for quite awhile.

[Jed Dilligan]

34. Wow, why didn't I think of that?

:sarcasm:

Roommates cost money too. I could add a roommate and still not have a "down payment" saved up until I'm ready to retire.

[dysfunctional press]

35. well gee...if you wait long enough, and make enough excuses...

maybe someone will bring you one on a silver platter.

:eyes:

[Jed Dilligan]

38. Excuses?

So not owning a home makes me a bad person?

[dysfunctional press]

41. no- making excuses for how hard everything is does.

LOTS of people make LOTS of sacrifices to eventually own a home- while you scoff at the prospect of thing like getting a roommate as "too expensive"(??)

the attitude that comes across in your posts is that you seem to want it ALL right NOW, without having to put in the same work and time that others have and do, in order to get where they want in life.

[Jed Dilligan]

42. No, that's your stereotype.

My attitude is that I never want to own a home--I want to rent at a fair price. Period. The fact that I can't imagine saving $50k or whatever people throw down for a house does not affect the fact that home ownership appears to me to suck, and I don't want to participate it. Your pompous stereotyping is one example of how it sucks.

[dysfunctional press]

43. so you don't want the responsibility of ownership-

you just want to be able to rent the kind of place YOU want, for the amount of money YOU think you should have to pay...

maybe you and hfojvt should just buy a boat together, and sail off in search of never-never land.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

btw- if it's my stereotype- you've done nothing but enforce it so far...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

this is what happens when you take initiative out of the public schools.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

48. You know nothing about me.

You don't know what I've gone through and the responsibilities I've taken on in my life. So why are you putting all these stereotypes on me?

Private property is your religion, I'm sorry if I offended your religion. I think home ownership mostly turns people into boring arrogant shits who like to preach to the rest of us about what we should have done thirty years ago.

Urban America once worked without it, almost entirely. Please take your religion back to the obscure suburb where it belongs.

Calling me irresponsible is just as much an ad hominem attack as what I called you.

[dysfunctional press]

49. i don't live in the obscure sub-urbs...

i own income property in the big city.

and all i know of you is what you've posted in this thread- and it pretty much screams "ireesponsibility"...possibly tinged with a bit of regret and jealousy(that would account for the bitterness, and foul after-taste).

happy renting...:hi:

and i'll continue to appreciate my equity, as it continues to appreciate for me.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. Then I can assume

That you are a scumbag law-breaking slumlord who rents shit properties for luxury rates to people who can't escape their situations. And suggests they stack in on top of each other like farm animals so that they can someday be as wonderful and pleasant as himself.

Which is the same as saying that "what I write" "screams" "irresponsibility, regret, and jealousy."

To confirm or deny either could only be based on our own assertions here, so there's no point in continuing. I can only hope that the person you describe suffers enormous misfortune and stops being a slumlord/scumlord. Since this is all just narrative and metanarrative anyway,

Because it's utterly annoying here's one or two back at you:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[dysfunctional press]

51. you assume way too much.

my wife and i own a two-flat in chicago- we live in the lower one-bedroom apartment, and rent out the upper.

and just for your info-tainment, here's what the $750 rent(going to $800 in september) includes:5 rooms(living room, bedroom, dining room, kitchen, bath) + 2 walk-in closets and a pantry. private front/back decks, heat & cooking gas, directv with ALL premium movie channels & 32-inch television, free broadband internet- including e-mail account & a computer with a 19-inch monitor, free use of basement laundry facilities, dishwasher in the kitchen, pets(2 cats or one small dog) allowed. we also allow the tenant to pay the security deposit over the course of four monthly installments, and require only the first month's rent at time of move-in. we also have a clause in our lease that allows the tenant to terminate the lease with a 45-day notice with no penalty. and we're currently in the process of adding a 5'X 7' 5-foot deep wooden hot-tub...to which the tenant will have FULL access. also- we don't have central air, and we don't pay for electricity- but we DO provide 2 window a/c units.

you can call me anything you like- but you won't find a better landlord.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

53. nope- it's all true.

i hated having crappy landlords- so i made it a point not to be one.

-and everything we offer as part of the rent also becomes a partial tax-deduction for us.

btw- our current tenant is getting married and will be vacating in november or december- if anybody needs a place on the north side of chicago(over by foster & kedzie) around then...and yes, everything i said about the unit is absolutely true.

[Jed Dilligan]

54. All I'm saying is that you can't substantiate anything you say

about yourself, without revealing your identity, which is something I'm not willing to do here. (Don't know about you, but it would be pretty stupid.)

So if you go around saying I'm an irresponsible bitter sad sack who resents people who have more than I do, I can go around calling you a shitty slumlord and no one can really deny what either of us says.

Welcome to postmodernity... Where who you are and what you do doesn't really matter.

You clearly come from a modern reality with virtues, rewards, and some sense of fairness. Lucky you.

[laundry_queen]

19. Too bad there isn't

some sort of large grant for those small business who wanted to build low rent housing - some sort of business incentive - with the catch that there would be rent controls. I'm sure there are a few small business owners out there who would love to build low rent housing for next to nothing, and get a decent return on it (not like the large corps that want 100% return on everything - in a year, lol).
That in and of itself would create jobs (small business owners, contruction etc).

[Gormy Cuss]

26. Historically there have been incentives like that both by HUD and states

Usually grant programs were directed to nonprofit housing developers. There have also been programs to attract private developers (tax credits, mortgage rate discounts, building loan guarantees, etc.)

The problem is these forms of rental assistance by HUD are taking a secondary role to home ownership programs, as if that home ownership is the only solution.

[Wcross]

9. Affordable housing would be 28% of your monthly gross income

Minimum wage is 5.15 (I think), so the monthly gross would be 891.98 per month. The affordable rent would be 249.75 a month.
I don't think rents would go that low without government subsidies. It would have no effect on other real estate.

[Matariki]

13. the problem is real estate as investment

sort of like selling water from the common well, imo.

wish people would rethink this one.

[Jed Dilligan]

16. If anything can't be used as an investment

The magic spell of capitalism will suddenly be broken and we will all have to live without $35 DVD players.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

70. EVERYTHING is an investment to somebody

bread twisty ties are proably a very good and profitable investment to somebody somehwere (who owns a twisty tie company)

I appreciate what you saying, but water is about as much of a commodity as one can imagine, while Real Estate is about as far away from commodity one can imagine. Water being pretty has entirely uniform characteristics, while every single piece of real estate on Earth is unique with attributes that appeal to or discourage different sets of buyers/sellers. I suppose air and real estate might be slightly further apart.

Nonetheless, affordable living cost is a desireable, albeit difficult to obtain goal.

[cascadiance]

15. The bottom line is that housing prices reflect the REAL inflation going on

and that the BS we hear every day from the MSM that there's no inflation is a line of BULL. What really is needed is that wages catch up with inflation again. The problem we have is with all of the outsourcing and illegal immigration along with the efforts to remove H1-B Visa caps along with "guest worker" programs is artificially lowering our labor costs as well as many costs of goods and services produced by imported or outsourced labor. If we get control over illegal and "guest worker" immigration as well as disincentivize outsourcing, that hopefully would raise wages at a faster pace than housing prices would raise and lower the wealth gap between the top and the bottom and strengthen our middle class.

It is that movement that would start allowing the market to make housing more affordable to more people. You might pay more for groceries, etc. but you'd be paying a lot less for what are currently non-outsourced goods and services (rent, home ownership, health care, legal costs, etc.) relatively speaking and most of us would come out ahead, even though the costs of living for the elite might go up *slightly*.

[LSK]

17. its all a symtom of the declining middle class job market

As real wages go down and good jobs are harder to come by, people are looking towards real estate as a path to a good way of life. This has been one of the reasons of the housing bubble we are in. Too many people have read Rich Dad Poor Dad and everyone is trying to get rental properties. With so many people buying second homes and renting them out, that has created a real estate demand that has driven up prices. Now also another part of it is once you purchased your rental property, then you have to raise the rents in order to start making monthly cashflow on your rental property. It isnt enough for rents to cover the mortgage, but it rents have to be higher than the mortgage in order to provide income to the landlord.

[SoCalDem]

20. Look no further than the 60's..

a blue collar guy could buy a house with affordable payments, buy a new car every few years, send his kids to college and if his wife chose to, she could stay home and raise the kids..

how was that achieved?

UNIONS...


as unions got killed off, workers lost their edge and the race to the bottom was on..... we are almost there..

people live on a knife's edge...one disaster can send them into serious debt because every cent of income is obligated before the check is even received.

this is why the savings rate has steadily fallen over the years.. there is NO "left over" left..and there hasn't been for years..

People are led to believe that all the Moms just got "liberated" and all headed for jobs because they wanted to.. I maintain that this is NOT true now, nor ever was.. Not many women want to drag a sleeping baby out of bed at 6 am and into daycare for 10 hours..or to know that an older kid is a latchkey kid for 3-4 hours a day.

You won't find a more stressed group of people than working mothers (working outside the home).. They do it because as costs rise, the main breadwinner's wages have not kept pace, so the only way to maintain what they have, is for Mom to bring a check home too..

I have never met a Mom who liked the idea of having someone else raise her kids, and all for money to pay other people...

When two people in the family have jobs, it creates more traffic, more gasoline burned, more stress, worse nutrition for the family...etc etc etc..

but we are on that treadmill and I don't see it stopping anytime soon..

Basic necessities increase by a greater percentage than wages ever do..

[catmandu57]

21. There is affordable housing, but

Where it's affordable there isn't any work, and where there is work there's no affordable housing, it's a catch 22.
Here there is all kinds of apartments and houses that are affordable, there isn't an employment base though, the closest thing to that is twenty miles away.
So, a person could live here relatively cheaply, but have to drive to work, by the time you add in transportation costs it defeats the afford ability.

There is a new development that is going to add about 125 rental units to the existing stock, the landlords here are freaking and peaking, they're already offering free cable and other incentives to get their units rented, now it looks like they'll have to lower rent, but we're going to be having a glut for a few years anyway.

[sweetheart]

28. overpopulation

There are more people and a limited ground. Presume that property
will inflate to mathematically equivalence the increased global population.

As rats overpopulate a cage, they start to eat each other. Perhaps the
new industry will be sausage makers and butchers for the poor; "bush enterprises".

[leftofthedial]

44. capitalism makes that an impossibility

it also guarantees poverty and hunger

[Jed Dilligan]

46. When homeowners are so pompous about all their hard work

and responsibility, I really see no reason why I shouldn't pray everyday that the housing bubble will bust bigtime.

[Jim Warren]

57. fookin' a mate

got the same thought here.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

58. Yea homeowners suck

Except for the ones willing to lease you a place to live for next to nothing.

We all know they should perform hard work for free, and rent out their homes at a loss...That'll teach'm!

[Jed Dilligan]

60. The system sucks, and the people suck

when they get high and mighty about how great they are for paying a stupid mortgage.

Don't put things in my mouth I never said.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

62. Yea, Life is hard

Welcome to adulthood.

btw, The people I know, would much prefer to not pay a mortgage.

The only folks I know of who get high and mighty are those that buy their houses WITHOUT mortgages.

[Jed Dilligan]

64. Do you think everyone SHOULD own a home?

What I'm complaining about is people who act like it's a moral issue, related to responsibility or "adulthood." What you're forgetting is that back when cities actually functioned in this country, the bulk of residents lived in apartments, hotels, and rooming houses. Rent was one of several bills that piled up, like cleaning and groceries, rather than the 800-lb. gorilla in the room.

You can participate in the "ownership society" all you want, but don't expect sympathy from me when the bubble bursts and you end up needing a place to stay.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

65. Only if they want to

Its a personal decision of course.

Im not so sure things were alot better back in olden days living out of hotels and rooming houses, day to day, but I imagine that some folks might like that kind of life.

Of course back then debtors prisons provided a pretty good incentive to not owe any debts.

Btw, if and perhaps when the bubble bursts, it'll burst for all property owners..both homeowners and landlords. The homeowners & landlords will be receiving foreclosures notices only a few months before tenants get their eviction notices. Then everyone is homeless.

The day the bubble bursts may be tomorrow, or next year, maybe 10 or 50 years from now...and then we'll be homeless together. Since I'll proably be on the street a few months before you, I'll scout out a nice square on skid row for you. Until that day I'll enjoy living in a home building equity and security, as opposed to building equity and security for a landlord.


peace.

[Jed Dilligan]

66. You wouldn't last a minute on the streets

With your pompous, disrespectful attitude. Some ex-con would cold-cock you and you would be SOL: shit outta luck.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

67. Wow, your're a tough guy.

I'll go away before you get really angry and start using exclamation points and all caps.

[Jed Dilligan]

68. I look forward to it.

Somehow don't believe it, though.

[Jim Warren]

61. What's that I hear?

Oh, just the sharpening of the pitchforks and oiling the torches.

No worries, pay that no mind, go back to your favorite programming.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

63. Who you goin after?

If you don't mind me asking?

[Jed Dilligan]

69. People are tough

When they've always had a police department to protect their asses. They throw judgments and lectures and snark and snicker-dee-dee around like it's all a game. It's when the police decide you're a "scum" or "lowlife" and stop protecting you that you have to learn to respect people... no matter what you might think of them privately. It will be a good day when the money to protect these chicken-hawks dries up and they come face to face with the people they taunted from behind their walls.

[Jim Warren]

71. A whole lotta shaking going on

and they'll be shittin in their Dockers. To not know or forget history is to remain a child. Very few know of the past, of major societal shake-ups, of the '30s and 40's, of the "Hoovervilles", the mean streets.

I too do not buy, for one minute, this "ownership society" bullshit.